Haryana

Ambala

CC/64/2017

Kulbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Jasora

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        :  64 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  28.02.2017

                                                          Date of decision    :  15.04.2019

 

 

Kulbir Singh son of Shri Partap Singh, aged 48 years, resident  of village Upperli Dhamoli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Bharat  Petroleum Corporation Ltd; having its registered office ; Bharat Bhushan, 4& 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001.

2.       Metro Gas Agency, 121, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt.

3.       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. having its branch office at 5406, SHREE COMPLEX, 2^nd Floor, Cross road No.3, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

4.       United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, No.17, 226, Canada Building Ist Floor, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. Sushil Kumar Jarora, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. K.C.Jain, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.4.

 

 Order:        Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.17,00,000/- as claim on account of death of Jasbir Kaur, wife of the complainant alongwith interest  from the  date of her  death till realization.   
2. To pay Rs.2,75,000 /- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
4.  

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having LPG connection bearing consumer no.17903, SV No.503330956 of 21.11.2001 with the OP No. 2, the authorized dealer of OP. No. 1. On 22.10.2014, complainant got delivery of the LPG cylinder from the OP No.2. After taking the delivery of the said cylinder, complainant found that there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder. Complainant immediately informed this matter to the official of the OP No.2 and requested to replace the cylinder but the official of the OP No.2 told that there is no defect  in the cylinder  and assured  that after connecting  the cylinder  with the gas chulha, the leakage of gas will stop automatically. On 24.10.2014, in the morning at about 8.00 AM., the LPG cylinder which was connected with the gas chulha got empty. After that, complainant and his wife with due care connected the above said refilled cylinder with the chulha and switched on the regulator.   On ignition, due to leakage of gas from the cylinder, the fire broke in the kitchen and the complainant and his wife got struck in the fire. The complainant immediately ran out from the kitchen and his sons tried to save his wife. Thereafter, the complainant and his wife were taken to M.M.Hospital, Mullana, but as the condition of complainant’s wife was critical, therefore, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where she died on 30.10.2014. The matter was reported to the police of P.S. Shahzadpur, and DDR No.25 dated 24.10.2015 was got registered and also reported the matter with the Ops. An official from the OPs, visited the house of the complainant and inspected the site, who also found leakage of gas from the cylinder. He further stated that Ops demanded application from the complainant and promised that adequate compensation will be given to the complainant, thereafter, he fulfilled all the formalities. The complainant requested the Ops, several times to make the payment of the compensation amount, but the Ops always put-off the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to this act of the Ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OP No.1, appeared through counsel and tendered written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; hopelessly time barred; bad for non-joinder of necessary party;  no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the  LPG cylinders are  supplied/refilled  to the OP No.2 by the answering OP. It is stated that LPG cylinders are refilled at the plant at village Alamfir(Lalru)District Mohali under  the supervision  and control  of ministry of petroleum and natural gas. The said refilling plant possesses a highly  sophisticated and mechanized  system  for refilling  of the LPG gas cylinders. It is only after checking at various check  points  that the refilled  cylinders are passed  on to the distributors  for delivery  to the consumers. No information  about alleged  incident  was given by  complainant  to OP and thus no inspection  by a competent official could be done. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, same may be dismissed with cost.

Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared through counsel and tendered written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; hopelessly time barred; no jurisdiction; bad for non-joinder of necessary party; no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that no information about alleged incidence was ever given by the complainant to it and thus no inspection by a competent official could be done and prayed that complaint may be dismissed with cost.

Upon notice OP No.3, appeared through counsel and tendered written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; suppressed true material facts; hopelessly time barred; not come with clean hands.  On merits, it is stated that neither the complainant nor OP No.2 has ever intimated about the alleged claim with the OP, which is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy till date. All other allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint against it.

Upon notice OP No.4, appeared through counsel and tendered written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; no jurisdiction; no cause of action; suppressed true material facts; hopelessly time barred; not come with clean hands;  On merits, it is stated that as per specific instructions, if any fault  or malfunctioning is detected from any gas connection,  then the consumer  is supposed  to inform  the distributor  about the same immediately and till their  complaint  is redressed they are  instructed and  supposed  to switch  off the gas  supply   from the regulator. But the complainant did not bother to lodge any complaint with the distributor or any other agency or even any private mechanic or technical man. No information about alleged incident was ever given by complainant to OP and thus no inspection by a competent official could be done. Thus, there is no deficiency in  service on the part of the Op No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and close the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1/A to R-2/A and close the evidence. Evidence of the OP No.2 has been closed by court order on 04.12.2018. Counsel for OP No. 3 tendered documents as Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence.  Counsel for OP No.4 tendered Affidavit as RW-4/A and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is having a LPG gas connection bearing no.503330956 with OP No.2, the authorised distributor of OP No.1. On 22.10.2014, OP No.2 delivered a refilled LPG gas cylinder and at the time of taking the delivery complainant found that there was leakage of gas from the said cylinder. He requested the OP No.2 to replace the same but its official told him that after connecting the cylinder with the gas chulha, the leakage of gas will stop automatically. On 24.10.2014, the cylinder already connected with the gas chulha got empty and same was  replaced with the LPG gas cylinder in question. On ignition, due to leakage of the gas from the cylinder, fire broke in the kitchen. He and his wife got burnt and they were taken to M.M.Hospital, Mullana. As the condition of his wife was critical, therefore, she was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh and died on 30.10.2014. Matter was reported to the Police vide DDR No.25 dated 24.10.2015 and also to the Ops. Official of the Ops visited and inspected his premises and found that there was leakage of gas cylinder. Ops told him to file application for compensation, accordingly, he filed an application with the Ops and had also completed the requisite formalities but the Ops paid nothing as compensation for the loss suffered by him.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Ops have argued that complainant neither informed them regarding the incidence nor filed any application for compensation as alleged by the complainant. Once no claim was lodged by the complainant, the question of refusal to not to pay the claim amount does not arise at all. Moreover the alleged incidence took place on 24.10.2014 whereas, the DDR was got registered with the police on 24.10.2015 i.e. after a delay of one year. Even in the DDR, it is stated that he and his wife changed the empty cylinder with the cylinder in question but could not connect properly. Thereafter, he pressed the pin of the cylinder and some gas came out, after which he attached the said cylinder with chulha. On ignition, due to leakage from cylinder, fire broke, he and his wife got burnt.  It is further stated that this incident occurred due to leakage from the gas cylinder and not due to anybody’s fault and he does not want to initiate any proceedings against anybody, under law. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The present complaint is not only liable to be dismissed on merits but liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation also. Therefore, same may be dismissed with heavy cost.

The plea of the complainant is that after the occurrence of the incident, he filed an application for compensation with the OP No.1. & 2, but neither the OP Nos.1 & 2 nor their insurance companies, paid any claim amount to him. Whereas the stand of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 is that the complainant has neither informed about the incident not filed any application for compensation as alleged by the complainant. Since, complainant did not file any application for compensation, therefore, question of paying any compensation does not arise. Facing with this situation we are of the view that onus is on the complainant to prove the said fact by any cogent and conceiving evidence but no such document has been placed on record by the complainant to establish that he had informed the OP No. 1 & 2 about the incidence and has also filed an application for compensation with them.  Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence this contention of the complainant cannot be taken as a gospel truth. This fact can also not be ignored that DDR was got registered after a delay of one year from the date of occurrence of the incidence. Even otherwise from the contents of the DDR, it is clear that the complainant had absolved everyone for cause of fire.  More so, it is a sheer negligence on the part of the complainant to connect the cylinder to the gas chulha, if he was suspecting leakage from it.  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Even the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation because the earlier complaint bearing no.401 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Forum vide its order dated 03.11.2016. As per the liberty granted to the complainant he should have filed the complaint immediately, thereafter, however he has filed the present complaint after a delay of  more than two months that too without filing of application of condonation of delay.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present compliant with any order as to cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 15.04.2019

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)              (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

                      Member                     Member                       President